Thanks, @Llamaxyz for this disclosure. From our side, we have analyzed what went wrong and what could be a good way forward for us to help teams submit more safely proposals.
-
We think that our reviewing process could be improved by giving early feedback here on the forum, if we feel that the general design/approach of the proposal could be more optimal, a similar approach as here [ARFC] Repay Excess CRV Debt on Ethereum v2 - #7 by bgdlabs, so we will proceed that way.
-
We will improve the tooling of the community (e.g. Seatbelt) to go a bit deeper on the verification of scenarios like this one (assets management), which are becoming more common.
-
We will coordinate with the security partners of the community to understand if it is better to approach differently to smart contracts of a similar style to the ones on the 144 system.
-
On our reviews, we will be stricter on the test cases required, whenever applicable.